Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads)
Quote from Canute (my emphasis):
"Could somebody please post the combined evidence against her.
I don't mean rumour etc, I mean links to actual interviews where she says she is solo. Not other people saying she is solo. Not journalists saying what she thinks she is."
Yes, this is the nub of the matter. There's no doubt that her stated mission, as promulgated on her website, was to fly solo to Australia like Amy Johnson. That was certainly still stated at least as recently as her arrival in Darwin, as I commented at that time in the following post:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post9226040
[the title of the link simply refers to the name of the thread in AH&N]
AFAIK she has never admitted to having amended her mission in that respect, but I stand to be corrected. She has never made any statement admitting that she carried a functioning co-pilot on even one sector of the journey.
After listening to her being interviewed by LIbby Purves on BBC Radio 4, I posted this, which includes a brief transcript of a rather interesting slip she made while describing the Arizona accident:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post9226040
It might still be possible, I guess, to obtain a complete transcript of the interview from the BBC. IIRC the whole of it was based on the premise (or at least the implication) that she had flown to Australia solo.
"Could somebody please post the combined evidence against her.
I don't mean rumour etc, I mean links to actual interviews where she says she is solo. Not other people saying she is solo. Not journalists saying what she thinks she is."
Yes, this is the nub of the matter. There's no doubt that her stated mission, as promulgated on her website, was to fly solo to Australia like Amy Johnson. That was certainly still stated at least as recently as her arrival in Darwin, as I commented at that time in the following post:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post9226040
[the title of the link simply refers to the name of the thread in AH&N]
AFAIK she has never admitted to having amended her mission in that respect, but I stand to be corrected. She has never made any statement admitting that she carried a functioning co-pilot on even one sector of the journey.
After listening to her being interviewed by LIbby Purves on BBC Radio 4, I posted this, which includes a brief transcript of a rather interesting slip she made while describing the Arizona accident:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post9226040
It might still be possible, I guess, to obtain a complete transcript of the interview from the BBC. IIRC the whole of it was based on the premise (or at least the implication) that she had flown to Australia solo.
Thread Starter
Sorry to dodge out of this topic for a week or so but I am in Laos researching the damage done by US dropped landmines during the Vietnam war that are still killing and maiming people today.
On to the Spirit Of Artifice
To get to the root of the whole shabang you have to go back to the start of the story and Boeing Aircraft who issued the press release below on November 4th 2013.
In my book all the excuses in the world about "sole pilot" will not wash with a flight 'emulating' Lady Mary Heath but sold to media by Boeing as a SOLO JOURNEY.
Lady Mary Heath flew alone without any so-called support team.
In my opinion the Spirit of Artemis was a big centenary PR stunt by Boeing Aircraft that crashed in Arizona.
Boeing played no part in Amy Johnson's or Lady Mary Heath's epic flights.
Lady Mary Heath flew a British made De Haviland aircraft not a 1942 Boeing Stearman.
Apart from being a biplane the Boeing Stearman is a completely different aircraft and not of the era.
Had the organisers of the Spirit Of Artemis wished to accurately emulate Lady Mary Heath's and Amy Johnson's flights then a decent start would have been a De Haviland Tiger Moth.
There are many still flying in Africa and across the world that are more than capable of still flying long distances.
As for Boeing Military Aircraft President Chris Chadwick's statement I suggest he take a history lesson.
The UK were aviation pioneers across the old British Empire long before Boeing.
On to the Spirit Of Artifice
To get to the root of the whole shabang you have to go back to the start of the story and Boeing Aircraft who issued the press release below on November 4th 2013.
In my book all the excuses in the world about "sole pilot" will not wash with a flight 'emulating' Lady Mary Heath but sold to media by Boeing as a SOLO JOURNEY.
Lady Mary Heath flew alone without any so-called support team.
Supporting Curtis-Taylor's S. Africa-to-UK Flight in Vintage Biplane
7,000-mile trip re-creates Lady Mary Heath's 1928 journey
Photos(1)
CLOSE
CAPE TOWN, South Africa, Nov. 4, 2013 – With support from Boeing [NYSE: BA], pilot Tracey Curtis-Taylor has taken off on a 7,000-mile (11,000-kilometer) solo journey, in a reconditioned Boeing Stearman open-cockpit biplane, to retrace Lady Mary Heath’s historic 1928 flight between South Africa and the United Kingdom.
Heath was the first pilot, male or female, to make such a journey.
Curtis-Taylor, a UK-based pilot, departed Cape Town on Nov. 2 with plans to land in Goodwood, near London, in December. She is flying a refurbished 1942 Stearman named Spirit of Artemis, after sponsor Artemis Investments.
“We hope this journey inspires people along the route to learn more about the remarkable history of aviation and the role Boeing has played in the past, as well as the important role we play in African aviation today,” said Boeing Military Aircraft President Chris Chadwick.
More than 8,500 Stearmans were built in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s. The airplane was the primary trainer for the U.S. Air Force and Navy during World War II.
For more information and to follow along with the trip, visit CapeTowntoGoodwood.com or Facebook.com/CapeTowntoGoodwood.
Boeing is the world's leading aerospace company and the largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners and military aircraft combined. Additionally, Boeing designs and manufactures rotorcraft, electronic and defense systems, missiles, satellites, launch vehicles and advanced information and communication systems. As a major service provider to NASA, Boeing is the prime contractor for the International Space Station. The company also provides numerous military and commercial airline support services. Boeing provides products and support services to customers in 150 countries and is one of the largest U.S. exporters in terms of sales. Headquartered in Chicago, Boeing employs more than 170,000 people across the United States and in 70 countries. Total company revenues for 2012 were $81.7 billion. Follow us on Twitter: @Boeing.
# # #
Contact:
Felix Sanchez
Boeing Defense, Space & Security
International Communications
562-797-1114
[email protected]
Johan du Toit
Meropa Communications
+27 82 378 7791
[email protected]
7,000-mile trip re-creates Lady Mary Heath's 1928 journey
Photos(1)
CLOSE
CAPE TOWN, South Africa, Nov. 4, 2013 – With support from Boeing [NYSE: BA], pilot Tracey Curtis-Taylor has taken off on a 7,000-mile (11,000-kilometer) solo journey, in a reconditioned Boeing Stearman open-cockpit biplane, to retrace Lady Mary Heath’s historic 1928 flight between South Africa and the United Kingdom.
Heath was the first pilot, male or female, to make such a journey.
Curtis-Taylor, a UK-based pilot, departed Cape Town on Nov. 2 with plans to land in Goodwood, near London, in December. She is flying a refurbished 1942 Stearman named Spirit of Artemis, after sponsor Artemis Investments.
“We hope this journey inspires people along the route to learn more about the remarkable history of aviation and the role Boeing has played in the past, as well as the important role we play in African aviation today,” said Boeing Military Aircraft President Chris Chadwick.
More than 8,500 Stearmans were built in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s. The airplane was the primary trainer for the U.S. Air Force and Navy during World War II.
For more information and to follow along with the trip, visit CapeTowntoGoodwood.com or Facebook.com/CapeTowntoGoodwood.
Boeing is the world's leading aerospace company and the largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners and military aircraft combined. Additionally, Boeing designs and manufactures rotorcraft, electronic and defense systems, missiles, satellites, launch vehicles and advanced information and communication systems. As a major service provider to NASA, Boeing is the prime contractor for the International Space Station. The company also provides numerous military and commercial airline support services. Boeing provides products and support services to customers in 150 countries and is one of the largest U.S. exporters in terms of sales. Headquartered in Chicago, Boeing employs more than 170,000 people across the United States and in 70 countries. Total company revenues for 2012 were $81.7 billion. Follow us on Twitter: @Boeing.
# # #
Contact:
Felix Sanchez
Boeing Defense, Space & Security
International Communications
562-797-1114
[email protected]
Johan du Toit
Meropa Communications
+27 82 378 7791
[email protected]
Boeing played no part in Amy Johnson's or Lady Mary Heath's epic flights.
Lady Mary Heath flew a British made De Haviland aircraft not a 1942 Boeing Stearman.
Apart from being a biplane the Boeing Stearman is a completely different aircraft and not of the era.
Had the organisers of the Spirit Of Artemis wished to accurately emulate Lady Mary Heath's and Amy Johnson's flights then a decent start would have been a De Haviland Tiger Moth.
There are many still flying in Africa and across the world that are more than capable of still flying long distances.
As for Boeing Military Aircraft President Chris Chadwick's statement I suggest he take a history lesson.
The UK were aviation pioneers across the old British Empire long before Boeing.
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 14th Oct 2016 at 10:45.
Quotes from Boeing, courtesy of Jay Sata:
"With support from Boeing [NYSE: BA], pilot Tracey Curtis-Taylor has taken off on a 7,000-mile (11,000-kilometer) solo journey, in a reconditioned Boeing Stearman open-cockpit biplane, to retrace Lady Mary Heath’s historic 1928 flight between South Africa and the United Kingdom...
"...“We hope this journey inspires people along the route to learn more about the remarkable history of aviation and the role Boeing has played in the past, as well as the important role we play in African aviation today,” said Boeing Military Aircraft President Chris Chadwick."
There is indeed an implication, presumably aimed at potential third-world customers, that Boeing was heavily involved in pioneering flights in the late-1920s and 1930s between Africa and Europe. It does Boeing no credit that the statements make no mention of Avro's and de Havilland's role. (This attitude is not unprecedented, of course. I doubt that Boeing offers any credit to de Havilland for pioneering jet air-travel years before the 707.)
One wonders how much the present bosses of the company - tucked away in Chicago - are in touch with aviation history. Given any sales opportunity, they would probably rename even the DC-2 and DC-3 with Boeing monikers That's not to disrespect the many fine airplanes that bear the Boeing name, not least the Stearman.
"With support from Boeing [NYSE: BA], pilot Tracey Curtis-Taylor has taken off on a 7,000-mile (11,000-kilometer) solo journey, in a reconditioned Boeing Stearman open-cockpit biplane, to retrace Lady Mary Heath’s historic 1928 flight between South Africa and the United Kingdom...
"...“We hope this journey inspires people along the route to learn more about the remarkable history of aviation and the role Boeing has played in the past, as well as the important role we play in African aviation today,” said Boeing Military Aircraft President Chris Chadwick."
There is indeed an implication, presumably aimed at potential third-world customers, that Boeing was heavily involved in pioneering flights in the late-1920s and 1930s between Africa and Europe. It does Boeing no credit that the statements make no mention of Avro's and de Havilland's role. (This attitude is not unprecedented, of course. I doubt that Boeing offers any credit to de Havilland for pioneering jet air-travel years before the 707.)
One wonders how much the present bosses of the company - tucked away in Chicago - are in touch with aviation history. Given any sales opportunity, they would probably rename even the DC-2 and DC-3 with Boeing monikers That's not to disrespect the many fine airplanes that bear the Boeing name, not least the Stearman.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Small query: why is our Aviatrix always shown in the back seat of the Stearman ? When I was learning to fly on the things in WWII, the pupil flew in the back, dual or solo. The Instructor always sat in the front, left back seat empty if no pupil.
At Basic (Vultee BT-13) and Advanced (North American AT-6A), pupil was always in front (dual and solo), Instructor in the back - but when there was no pupil, Instructor always in front. Same in Miles Master in UK.
Later did some unofficial instruction in TMs and Harvards (I'm not a QFI). Always sat in front, my 'pupil' or passenger always in back.
A 'solo' pilot with 1,700 (?) hrs would sit in front, surely ? The back is normally the pupil's or passenger's place, or left empty.
Just a thought.
At Basic (Vultee BT-13) and Advanced (North American AT-6A), pupil was always in front (dual and solo), Instructor in the back - but when there was no pupil, Instructor always in front. Same in Miles Master in UK.
Later did some unofficial instruction in TMs and Harvards (I'm not a QFI). Always sat in front, my 'pupil' or passenger always in back.
A 'solo' pilot with 1,700 (?) hrs would sit in front, surely ? The back is normally the pupil's or passenger's place, or left empty.
Just a thought.
Thread Starter
Boeing are the culprits when it comes to misinformation regarding the Spirit of Artemis.
In my opinion they were the primary sponsors and issued the press releases that stated in November 2013 the Spirit of Artemis Africa trip was a "SOLO JOURNEY".
Those two words from Boeing are important because the pilots statement earlier this year suggested that the person in the back seat was the "sole pilot".
The Boeing press releases convinced the media to print and broadcast 'solo aviatrix' stories however the pictures clearly show two on the Stearman right down to the arrival at Goodwood.
In the Daily Mail story commercial pilot Ewald Gritsch admitted he was on board.
source 'Solo' flying poster girl is brought down by claims that she had co-pilot | Daily Mail Online
Unless I am missing something is it possible to have anyone on board apart from the pilot for a SOLO JOURNEY?
In my opinion they were the primary sponsors and issued the press releases that stated in November 2013 the Spirit of Artemis Africa trip was a "SOLO JOURNEY".
Those two words from Boeing are important because the pilots statement earlier this year suggested that the person in the back seat was the "sole pilot".
The Boeing press releases convinced the media to print and broadcast 'solo aviatrix' stories however the pictures clearly show two on the Stearman right down to the arrival at Goodwood.
In the Daily Mail story commercial pilot Ewald Gritsch admitted he was on board.
Mr Gritsch admits he was in the forward cockpit for ‘the majority’ of the flights from Cape Town to Goodwood and Farnborough to Sydney. He said: ‘The situation was that it was not a solo flight.’
Unless I am missing something is it possible to have anyone on board apart from the pilot for a SOLO JOURNEY?
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 14th Oct 2016 at 20:47.
Generally on lightweight tandem aeroplanes, the student, or solo pilot, are generally in the seat furthest from the permissible CG range, and the "other" seat which can be either occupied or empty is the closest to the CG range. Which is front and which is back varies between aeroplanes.
Photographs of Stearmen on the interweb invariably showing solo flight from the rear seat. The rear seat is clearly the furthest from the 25% chord line, and so the furthest from the CG range.
So, whether TCT is the captain and EG is a passenger, or TCT is a student and EG is her instructor - TCT would still be in the rear seat.
G
Photographs of Stearmen on the interweb invariably showing solo flight from the rear seat. The rear seat is clearly the furthest from the 25% chord line, and so the furthest from the CG range.
So, whether TCT is the captain and EG is a passenger, or TCT is a student and EG is her instructor - TCT would still be in the rear seat.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 14th Oct 2016 at 18:22.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are a few legal letters flying around
If m'learned friends really are getting involved, this could get quite interesting. I don't fancy the TCT team's chances of taking on the Daily Mail with any success on this; although I suppose they might as well waste their money trying, as there isn't much room to fit any more egg on their face!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis (#1763),
We studes were told that the reason we were in the back was that, when our Instructor got out for our first solo, he being close to the CoG, the trim of the aircraft would hardly be affected.
Whereas, if he were behind and climbed out, the thing would be nose-heavy in the air and give us an extra worry (which you don't want on first solo).
But with a few hours under our belts, it should not worry us solo (but we were still kept in the back because we had no ASIs there - we thought all aircraft were flown "by the seat of the pants" until we had 60 hrs).
The Instructors had an ASI in front, so they never flew in the back !
I don't 'buy' the idea that a Stearman (or anything else) is better flown solo from the back. You can see obstacles on the ground (a R-22 for instance) and ahead in the air better when you're in front. I always did (so does Ewald, apparently).
It's a long time ago, now.
Danny.
We studes were told that the reason we were in the back was that, when our Instructor got out for our first solo, he being close to the CoG, the trim of the aircraft would hardly be affected.
Whereas, if he were behind and climbed out, the thing would be nose-heavy in the air and give us an extra worry (which you don't want on first solo).
But with a few hours under our belts, it should not worry us solo (but we were still kept in the back because we had no ASIs there - we thought all aircraft were flown "by the seat of the pants" until we had 60 hrs).
The Instructors had an ASI in front, so they never flew in the back !
I don't 'buy' the idea that a Stearman (or anything else) is better flown solo from the back. You can see obstacles on the ground (a R-22 for instance) and ahead in the air better when you're in front. I always did (so does Ewald, apparently).
It's a long time ago, now.
Danny.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis,
No luck yet - you have a point, I must admit. Yet I am adamant, at Carlstrom Field, Arcadia FLA, (Sep/Nov '41), the Instructors always flew solo from the front, the "Aviation Cadets" (aka LACs) always from the back.
Mind you, the fact that the ASIs were only in the front may have had something to do with it !
Yet, ('instructing') or solo, I always flew a Tiger from the front. Why should they be different ?
Danny.
No luck yet - you have a point, I must admit. Yet I am adamant, at Carlstrom Field, Arcadia FLA, (Sep/Nov '41), the Instructors always flew solo from the front, the "Aviation Cadets" (aka LACs) always from the back.
Mind you, the fact that the ASIs were only in the front may have had something to do with it !
Yet, ('instructing') or solo, I always flew a Tiger from the front. Why should they be different ?
Danny.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Boeing..
The more I find out, the more I tend to agree with Jay Sata that the above corporation has had significantly more
to do with this murky tale than I'd initially thought.
Further, as I'd mentioned before, British taxpayers had been contributing to the promotion of this rort.
Now, I'm also not terribly happy that I, as both an Australian taxpayer and Qantas shareholder, have also helped fund
the Tracey/Boeing/Artemis fraud.
Why am I not happy?
Well, for a start, I wasn't consulted and, secondly, I don't seem to have been mentioned in the credits.
If I want to be taken for a ride, I'll hail a Mumbai taxi.
.
The more I find out, the more I tend to agree with Jay Sata that the above corporation has had significantly more
to do with this murky tale than I'd initially thought.
Further, as I'd mentioned before, British taxpayers had been contributing to the promotion of this rort.
Now, I'm also not terribly happy that I, as both an Australian taxpayer and Qantas shareholder, have also helped fund
the Tracey/Boeing/Artemis fraud.
Why am I not happy?
Well, for a start, I wasn't consulted and, secondly, I don't seem to have been mentioned in the credits.
If I want to be taken for a ride, I'll hail a Mumbai taxi.
.
Last edited by Stanwell; 14th Oct 2016 at 21:49.
Googling Tiger Moth pictures, I can't find any pictures of the Tiger being flown solo from the front seat either - always the rear.
I've sadly not flown either type - but did some flight testing in the N3N-3 some years ago for some civilian modifications. That was also solo / captain from the rear also.
G
I've sadly not flown either type - but did some flight testing in the N3N-3 some years ago for some civilian modifications. That was also solo / captain from the rear also.
G
I will bow to the more knowledgeable on here but I found what appears to be two Stearman front-seat-only flights.
Both could be optical illusions and the red one may have a back-seater.
Really hard to tell.
Hope it helps.
Both could be optical illusions and the red one may have a back-seater.
Really hard to tell.
Hope it helps.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The type certificate data sheet for the Stearman can be found here:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/1b66a9575ec373858525673000457610/$FILE/A-743.pdf
Searching "solo" reveals limitations which are not entirely straight forward, and some nearly self contradictory. So maybe, TCT actually read the TCDS, and could not figure out how to fly it solo within the C of G range, so gave up, and just carried ballast ('may as well carry experienced ballast!).
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/1b66a9575ec373858525673000457610/$FILE/A-743.pdf
Searching "solo" reveals limitations which are not entirely straight forward, and some nearly self contradictory. So maybe, TCT actually read the TCDS, and could not figure out how to fly it solo within the C of G range, so gave up, and just carried ballast ('may as well carry experienced ballast!).
What's the phrase I often heard..."pound for pound I would rather have the fuel". Along with: you can never have too much height, runway behind you is no use, and the only time you have too much fuel is if you are on fire. :-)
Since the aircraft carries a "N" registration I guess the pilot would be subject to to the FAA's definition of "solo" flight, which is contained in 14 CFR 61.51.
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations
(d) Logging of solo flight time. Except for a student pilot performing the duties of pilot in command of an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember, a pilot may log as solo flight time only that flight time when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft.
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-
(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
(ii) When the pilot is the sole occupant in the aircraft;
(iv) When the pilot performs the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a qualified pilot in command
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-
(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
(ii) When the pilot is the sole occupant in the aircraft;
(iv) When the pilot performs the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a qualified pilot in command
Hard to find but proof is proof. Nice one Danny... 
I've kept the image to the Pprune recommended size so it might be a bit unclear but if you follow the link below the image and then scroll down the page, you can click on original picture to get a large view of five Stearman's all being flown from the front.
Stearman History - Vintage Aeroplane Europe
Credit: Vintage Aeroplane Europe
I've kept the image to the Pprune recommended size so it might be a bit unclear but if you follow the link below the image and then scroll down the page, you can click on original picture to get a large view of five Stearman's all being flown from the front.
Stearman History - Vintage Aeroplane Europe
Credit: Vintage Aeroplane Europe
Last edited by clareprop; 15th Oct 2016 at 08:51.
The FAA TCDS for the Stearman says
So where you can sit when solo depends upon where the empty CoG lies.
There is that word "solo" again. In TCT's book it means two up I guess.
Empty Weight CoG: (-1.5) to (+0.5) solo from either seat
(-4.4) to (+0.5) placard in front cockpit: "Solo from rear seat only."
When empty weight C.G. falls within this range, computation of critical fore and aft C.G. positions is unnecessary.
(-4.4) to (+0.5) placard in front cockpit: "Solo from rear seat only."
When empty weight C.G. falls within this range, computation of critical fore and aft C.G. positions is unnecessary.
There is that word "solo" again. In TCT's book it means two up I guess.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one Megan, I had hoped some one would provide a (quasi) legal definition of "solo" as applicable in the circumstances.
Whilst not a legal eagle in any sense, one wonders if the Freedom of Information act can be bought into play here?
A bit of googling suggests that private limited companies data (including employee data/records) is subject to the act if they engage with the public sector in the course of their business.
Given that the relevant company has sought embellishment by various public sector bodies in pursuit of marketing (and therefore profit) an FOI request for copies of all logbook entries might just stick?
I wonder if this request to could also be submitted to/via the CAA??
Just thinking out loud...no idea if this is viable.
Whilst not a legal eagle in any sense, one wonders if the Freedom of Information act can be bought into play here?
A bit of googling suggests that private limited companies data (including employee data/records) is subject to the act if they engage with the public sector in the course of their business.
Given that the relevant company has sought embellishment by various public sector bodies in pursuit of marketing (and therefore profit) an FOI request for copies of all logbook entries might just stick?
I wonder if this request to could also be submitted to/via the CAA??
Just thinking out loud...no idea if this is viable.
